What should we think of Switzerland during ww2?

Hello! I am thinking right now about the fact that Switzerland was neutral during the second world war. Their neighbours were attacked and invaded by Germany and from what I read, Switzerland remained neutral during all world war 2.

What should we think about Switzerland? Coward or anything else?

 

They had a right to declare their neutrality and I would not consider that to be cowardly. It provided a bit of a safe haven for those trying to flee the Nazi regime. Now their banks on the other hand......

 

I have no feelings one way or the other...there were several countries who did not involve themselves in that particular unpleasantness...Ireland, Argentina, Mexico and a bunch of others...I don't see why any special feelings be afforded to Switzerland over any of those.

Switzerland remaining neutral did provide for independent monitoring via the "Red Cross" and those provided through the Geneva Convention.

Switzerland has a history of neutrality.

 

Switzerland's army has not formally fought in a war since 1815. Their army did fight in a short civil war in 1847.

 

Umm, Mexico did their bit. Their Navy and Air Force patrolled against U-Boats, and attacked some, but I don't recall any sinkings. Further, their Air Force, did have one squadron, the 201st Fighter Squadron, that engaged in combat over the Philippines from May, 1945, until the end of the war.

 

As to the Swiss, I don't think they were cowardly at all. They managed to maintain their neutrality despite threats from Germany, one of the very few neutral countries that did.

I'd call them pragmatic...very pragmatic.

 

smart !!!!

 

The heck you say? I was unaware

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/379167/Mexico/27370/World-War-II-1941-45

 

I'd say it was smart and helpful.

Had they joined the Allies they would have been of realistically little use. Great defensive terrain but with Germany on one side, italy on another and France falling apart on the other what was there for them to do? Join, Hold out for a while, Eventually collapse or hold out until 1944/45 by which time god knows how many civilians would be starving or dead.

Could have joined the Axis but why, They had no joint philosophy, No territorial ambitions. So that wouldn't have happened.

Stay neutral as historically occurred and they get to live peacefully, As well as act as a middle man in negotiations.

Switzerland staying neutral was the best thing they could have done for them selves and for the other allies.

 

The Swiss didn't have may options, while they may be able to resist a German invasion short of an all out effort, the chances of achieving anything offensively are close to zero so why on earth should they declare war even had the population been 100% pro allies (which I believe it was not especially in the Italian ad German speaking "cantons"). The banking community, due to it's close internal ties and the systematic ""disappearance" of their Jewish customers, were probably more informed of the holocaust than most, but even there providing a safe heaven was probably more useful than anything else they might achieve. A neutral Switzerland was useful to everybody, so nobody was interested in forcing the issues when "incidents" happened.

One could argue the neutrality of Norway was violated by the British first, and Hitler's motivation that it didn't resist those violations forcefully enough is not totally groundless, the final German invasion beat the planned Anglo French one by a few hours. Denmark could be a different story (though it was bombed by the RAF on the first week of the war so it's pretty obvious it did allow overflights which is a violation of neutrality).

Sweden was initially a "pro German" neutral, it had much closer ties to Germany than to the Western Allies, the supplies to Dietl's besieged troops in Narvik are "iffy" under the definitions of what a neutral is allowed to do.

 

Sweden's stance was cowardly.


In 1939, when the Soviet Union delivered it's ultimatum to the Finns, Finland conferred with the Swedish Prime minister, who guaranteed the full support of Sweden, thinking that this would dissuade the Soviet Union from attacking.

It was this certainty of Swedish support, that led the Finns to turn down the Soviet ultimatum.

Of course, when the Soviets invaded, Sweden did sweet Fanny Adams. They "allowed" volunteers, and sent a substantial portion of their then pathetic airforce. But other than that and a finger waving shouting tut-tut from a safe distance, the Swedish state did very little indeed. They also provided safe haven for a large number of Finnish children, almost all remained after the war, dislocated from their families.

The fact is, Swedish armed forces were in such a state of disrepair and misery, that the Prime minister had no right to make those guarantees which he knew he could not fulfill.

Later, Sweden allowed troop transports by train to Norway from Denmark, and between Finland and Norway. Basically, the excuse given today is that Sweden's armed forces were too pathetic to resist, and it would've been occupied. Truth be told, at the time, Sweden was very pro-German. Even the act of resistance would've furthered the Allied cause, and to occupy Sweden would've further drained scarce German resources and manpower.

Apparently, Sweden saw no reason to take a stand against tyranny with its neighbours, but instead sought to let other nations around it suffer, while it made a profit.

As Sweden's usefulness as a separate entity to Nazi Germany would not have lasted in a Nazi-dominated Europe, it is difficult to see what the long term plan was other than hope that the Soviets and English die liberating the rest of Europe. Of course, when the US joined the war, it became a different song, and by 1944, with the writing on the wall, Sweden was firmly pro-Allied.

 

...and Swiss Banks did very nicely out of WWII.

 

Some more examples of money changing hands...

[SIZE=small]from Aalders-Wiebes book on cloaking financial actions:

"In 1946 the US foreign department gave an estimate of German investement in neutral countries:

Switzerland 250 million dollars

Sweden 105 million dollars (!!)

Spain 90 million dollars

Portugal 27 million dollars "[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Sad example of money politics:

from the book by Allders and Wiebes on covering financial actions:

After the Schweinfurt bombings the SKF ( Swedish ball bearings factory ) tripled its deal with Germany ( 1943 ).

General Arnold was mad with the US foreign politics not able to stop the Swedish trade with nazi Germany:

" If you guys had even one tenth of the guts of the guys who were shot over Schweinfurt you would tell the Swedes that we will boycott them now and after the war if they send even one piece of ball bearings to Germany!" [/SIZE]

 

the Sweden deal is what I have never read about...very, very interesting everyone...keep going....wow!!

 

The Swiss didn't want war and both Germany and the Allies had compelling reasons for keeping her neutral. That being said, Swiss banking practices both during and after the war did their country no honor.

 

GS, your next to last paragraph could have been said about the Anglo-French during the Czech crisis as well

Much like the Swiss, Sweden was pragmatic. I'm sure they wanted the Red Bear as far from her borders as possible and the Anglo-French made promises to Finland they too had no way to fulfill.

Of course pragmatic choices can devolve into morally questionable actions if given enough time to germinate.

 

Good point.

 

Some time ago I posted this on the sister site - it's appropriate here, now...